In the 1960s, Community Antenna Television (CATV) was chartered to provide off-air television signals to viewers in broadcast reception fringe areas. Later, under FCC regulation, the CATV industry was required to provide local access and original programming in addition to off-air broadcast signal distribution. Because of the wide bandwidth available on cable television systems, additional channels were available for the new programming. To increase revenues, cable television systems have initiated distribution of premium channels viewable only by subscribers having appropriate descramblers. The subscriber tunes the descrambler to receive a premium channel, descramble the video and audio information and supply a signal capable of reception on a standard television set.
Recently, several different wideband digital distribution networks have been proposed for offering subscribers an array of video services, including true Video On Demand service. The following U.S. Patents disclose representative examples of such digital video distributions networks: Yurt et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,253,275, Yurt et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,132,992, Ballantyne et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,133,079, Tindell et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,130,792, Lang U.S. Pat. No. 5,057,932, Lang U.S. Pat. No. 4,963,995, Cohen U.S. Pat. No. 4,949,187, Baji et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,057,400, and Walter U.S. Pat. No. 4,506,387. In particular, Litteral et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,247,347 discloses a digital video distribution network providing subscribers with access to multiple Video On Demand service providers through the public switched telephone network, as described in more detail below.
Although the digital landline systems provide some enhanced services, implementation on a large scale to service large numbers of customers has remained limited because of a number of technical and economic problems. To develop and deploy fiber optical systems for providing wide bandwidth to carry a large number of services into every living unit is expensive. Also, community regulations in many areas now require placement of new cabling underground. Some property owners will not agree to allow utility companies to dig up their property to lay the new cables, and even where the owner permits such an installation, the underground installation of fiber and/or coaxial drop cables from fiber backbone circuits only further increases the expense and difficulty of deployment.
The use of public switched telephone network wiring suggested by Litteral et al. reduces the need to install new fiber or cable, but the system disclosed therein is severely limited in terms of its service capability. As disclosed, direct cross connect switching provides point-to-point connectivity to the subscriber lines for interactive services, particularly video on demand. There is some limited point-to-multipoint capability, but not enough to cost effectively provide an array of broadcast type services competitive with current offerings through franchise based analog cable television systems.
Thus, a need still exists to provide a cost effective way to supply new digital broadband services to living units where it is not cost effective to deploy new fiber and cable to service those units.
Wireless video distribution is subject to much lower installation costs. However, as discussed below, wireless systems intended to compete with franchise cable services also have been subject to a number of problems and limitations.
"Wireless cable" is a term usually used to refer to a multi-channel video distribution medium that resembles franchise cable television, but which uses microwave channels rather than coaxial cable or wire to transmit programming to the subscriber. Programming for wireless cable systems is received at the headend of the wireless cable system in the same manner as it is for landline based cable television. These programs are then retransmitted, utilizing the high end of the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) portion of the microwave radio frequency spectrum (2.1 to 2.7 GHz), by a microwave transmitting antenna located on a tower or other tall structure to small antennas on subscriber rooftops, typically within a 40 mile radius.
In a typical prior art system, such as shown in FIG. 1, a headend system H receives up to a maximum of 33 analog television program signals from a variety of satellite down-link receivers and other types of receivers, in the exact same manner as for a cable television system. The headend system H frequency multiplexes those television program signals into a combined spectrum signal in the 50-450 Mhz range. This combined signal has a frequency distribution similar to that found on a cable television network. The headend system upconverts the combined spectrum signal to the UHF frequency range, typically centered around 2.6 Ghz. The headend system supplies the UHF signal to a single transmitter antenna tower T which broadcasts the signal to subscribers who each have an individual home receiving system. Subscribers can call in to the headend to order pay-per-view events via the telephone network, and the headend transmits codes to the subscribers systems to enable descrambling of encoded pay-per-view programs.
FIG. 1A shows a typical service area for a wireless cable type system of the type shown in FIG. 1. In accord with relevant regulations, a multi-channel multi-point distribution service (MMDS) type wireless cable operator has a protected or `primary` reception area P. At the relevant frequencies here under consideration, the primary area P is a circle having a radius of 15 miles from the operator's transmitter T. Within this area, the operator is guaranteed that there will be no interference with his transmissions on the assigned frequency channel(s). However, at the allowable power levels, the transmissions from antenna tower T will propagate out over a secondary area S having a radius of up to 40 miles. Within the secondary area, some locations will receive sufficient signal strength to utilize the wireless cable services.
UHF signals in the relevant frequency band arrive at a receiver location by direct line-of-sight (LOS) transmission. Typically an elliptical dish shaped antenna 18-36 inches long, formed of parallel curved elements, is aimed from the subscriber location to receive the strongest signal from the transmitter. The captured signals are down-converted at the antenna from the microwave band to the broadcast band and transmitted via coaxial wiring into the house. For scrambled signals (the typical case), a set top converter functionally similar to a cable set top box is used. In many UHF installations, to conserve UHF capacity for premium services, a VHF/UHF off-air broadcast receive antenna is installed with the UHF antenna to pick up the local programming.
To a user or subscriber, wireless cable operates as a cable look-alike service. Because wireless cable signals are transmitted over the air rather than through underground or above-ground cable networks, wireless systems are less susceptible to outages and are less expensive to operate and maintain than franchise cable systems. Most service problems experienced by wireless cable subscribers are home-specific rather than neighborhood-wide, as is frequently the case with franchise cable systems.
The evolution of wireless cable may be briefly summarized as follows. Wireless cable technology has existed in a single channel version for commercial purposes since the 1970's and had been available even longer for educational use. In mid-1983, the FCC, invoking the need to promote competition with conventional cable television systems, established a change in the rules for using a portion of the microwave spectrum previously designated for educational use. In the past, 28 microwave channels had been available to accredited and non-profit educational organizations for educational use exclusively by Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) operators. Rules reallocated eight of those channels for outright commercial use, and educational organizations were permitted to lease excess hours to commercial operators on the remaining 20 channels. In any local market, this makes it possible for a commercial operator to combine any or all of those 28 channels with five other channels already available for commercial use. Under current FCC rules, the available spectrum results in a maximum of 33 analog channels. This number of `wireless cable` channels is less than the number offered on many competing franchise type cable television systems.
Since 1983 spectrum blocks in the 2.1-2.7 Ghz range have been allocated for the purpose of delivering video content from a single transmit site to multiple receive locations. A total of 198 Mhz has been allocated for downstream transmission for the wireless cable service. The channelization and transmission modulation (6 Mhz amplitude modulation/vestigial side band) are equivalent to broadcast TV or cable but up-converted to microwave frequencies.
The 33 channels potentially available to wireless cable operators therefore are subdivided into two types of channels. Twenty channels are referred to as ITFS. The remaining 13 channels are generally referred to as Multi-channel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS).
The current UHF spectrum was originally licensed in blocks of four video channels each separately licensed, with each block allocated to a specific purpose. Five groups, each with four channels, were allocated to Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS). ITFS spectrum was initially made available only to educational institutions. Two groups of four channels were made available to anyone wishing to provide an alternative multi-channel video program service. The final four channels were licensed individually to institutions for the purpose of providing a private video network. Over time, the FCC relaxed some of these operational rules. Through licensing and leasing arrangements, the FCC now allows all of the channels to be aggregated for the purpose of providing an alternative to franchise cable television. However, even in areas where it is possible for one operator to aggregate the necessary licenses, the system capacity is still limited, i.e. to 33 channels or less.
In many ways, current typical UHF wireless TV is equivalent to at most a low tier franchise cable television system (i.e. having relatively few channels). Other than the number of program channels, the only real difference arises in the medium used to transport signals from the headend to the customer. Functionally identical headend equipment is utilized in both systems. In the case of UHF service, signals leave the headend via a microwave transmitter. With cable television, the same signals leave the headend on fiber or coaxial cable facilities. However, wireless cable systems have had difficulty competing because today many cable systems offer a more diverse range of programs.
Propagation characteristics at the relevant UHF operating frequencies require line-of-sight (LOS) between the transmit and receive antennas for reliable service reception. Both natural obstructions such as hills and vegetation, and man-made obstructions such as buildings, water towers and the like, limit the actual households capable of receiving an LOS transmission. FIG. 1A also shows a simplified example of one such obstruction 0. As illustrated, the obstruction O is within the primary reception area P. The obstruction blocks line-of-sight transmissions from transmitter antenna tower T in a radially extending blockage or shadow area B. Receiving systems within this area can not receive the transmissions from antenna T, and potential customers in that area B can not subscribe to the wireless cable services broadcast from that tower.
One solution to the blockage problem has been to provide repeaters. A repeater receives the primary transmission from tower T on the tower side of the obstruction, amplifies the signal if necessary, and retransmits the signal into the area of blockage. This may be an effective solution to one blockage or obstruction O, but in many major metropolitan areas there are many obstructions. The power levels of such repeaters tend to be low, and overcoming blockages due to distortions that result when amplifying combined RF channels caused by many different obstructions to the primary transmissions would require an inordinate number of repeaters. Also, because of delays and multipath effects, repeater transmissions may interfere with reception from the primary source in areas close to the blockage area B.
In the industry, a nominal figure for households reachable by LOS is 70%, even with a small, commercially practical number of repeaters. This projected number is based solely on computer models, not actual field measurements. It is believed that actual coverage by the current wireless cable technology in the UHF medium is considerably lower. Typical antenna heights required to achieve the present level of coverage in commercial service are 800-plus feet for transmitters and 30-60 feet for receivers. That means that many receive antennas must be mounted atop masts or nearby trees as an alternative to a rooftop mounting. While current regulations provide a 15 mile protected service area for MMDS, it is desired that effective system coverage for approximately 40-70% of the affected households may be achieved to a 40 mile radius from the transmitter antenna.
Besides signal blockage, several other propagation factors can affect reliable UHF service delivery. One factor is multi-path reflections of the desired signal arriving at the receiver by way of differing paths and therefore arriving with slight delay. For analog video signals, multi-path appears as ghost images on the viewer's TV. For digital signals, multi-path can cause intersymbol interference that results in multiple bit errors. In either case, near-coincident multi-path signals can cause a degree of signal cancellation that looks like additional propagation loss. Multi-path also results from reflections and diffraction.
Path fading is another significant coverage factor. Time-variant path fading can result from atmospheric effects, e.g., rain or temperature and pressure inversions. Rain can act to partially reflect or absorb the microwave signals. Weather inversions can result in an upward bending of the wave front due to refraction. There are engineering measures to mitigate the troublesome effects of time-variant path fading, such as suitable fade margins and antenna diversity.
In the paging and radio communication fields, various systems of sequencing and simulcasting have been proposed to achieve some increased coverage. Examples of typical proposed systems are illustrated in FIG. 2 and 3. The related systems are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,836,726, issued September 1974 and 5,038,403 issued Aug. 6, 1991. FIG. 2 illustrates a system utilizing sequencing while FIG. 3 illustrates a system utilizing simulcasting. As can be seen, the aim is to cover maximum area with minimum area of signal overlap. Even if someone suggested application to UHF Wireless Cable type communications, such propagation fields would still exhibit the above noted problems due to obstructions, multi-path interference and fading.
Clearly a need exists for a broadcast system providing increased propagation coverage and reduced areas of blockages. Any such system should also provide an increased number of programs, without requiring additional spectrum allocation. The system should provide good signal quality throughout the entire reception area or service area. Accordingly, it is also desirable to minimize multipath interference and loss of service due to fading.
An additional set of problems arise in providing the wireless cable service to certain types of multiple living unit residences. Many planned development communities have restrictive covenants which run with ownership of the property. In such communities, whether the homes are town houses or single family homes, the covenants may prevent installation of visible outside receiving antennae. Also, only a few homes in the community may have a good location for a line of sight receiving antenna. In apartment complexes, the residents may not be able to locate a dish type antenna outside at all, or if allowed to have such an outside antenna, they may not have access to a point on the building from which to aim the antenna at the transmitter tower.
Clearly an additional need exists for cost effective systems for supplying wireless cable broadcast signals to multiple living unit installations.